NEW YORK | WTC (Foster) | 1,765 FT / 538 M | 98 FLOORS | 2010 | NEVER BUILT - Page 2

J.M. · #21 Posted: **Apr 1, 2009, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

What a wonderful view, I would have loved this for the future of the WTC.

genop · #22 Posted: **Apr 1, 2009, 1:33 AM**

i wonder if the glass contract for this would have went to china too.

JDRCRASH · #23 Posted: **Apr 2, 2009, 6:17 PM**

Looking at that last picture/concept that NYguy provided on Page 1, i'm kind of glad this died.

NYguy · #24 Posted: **Apr 3, 2009, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.M.

I would have loved this for the future of the WTC.

Well, maybe you'll get to see Foster design "twins" elsewhere...

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com...pload_id=11286

Zerton · #25 Posted: **Apr 4, 2009, 11:56 PM**

I always thought it looked like someone's back. I liked it then but I like the complex that is to come better now.

NYguy · #26 Posted: **Apr 18, 2009, 11:32 AM**

Check this out...(3 vids)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arquepoetica/3450671915/

philvia · #27 Posted: **May 4, 2009, 8:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plokoon11

I would of never trusted this design it looks like it could collapse from a hurricane.

luckily, you're not an engineer(maybe you are, just a bad one) and we dont have a great threat from hurricanes.

this proposal was great and i'd love to see it elsewhere in the city.

MolsonExport · #28 Posted: **May 4, 2009, 8:25 PM**

I loved (and still do) Foster's WTC design. Certainly better than the oogly Freedumb tower.

M II A II R II K · #29 Posted: **Aug 20, 2009, 12:38 PM**

We would have to see the new WTC after it's finished to truly determine how much we like it or dislike it.

Lecom · #30 Posted: **Aug 20, 2009, 4:44 PM**

These would've been as out-of-scale garguntan monsters as the originals were. Just like the originals, they'd be an icon in their own right, but they'd sh*t all over the rest of Downtown.

CGII · #31 Posted: **Aug 20, 2009, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecom

These would've been as out-of-scale garguntan monsters as the originals were. Just like the originals, they'd be an icon in their own right, but they'd sh*t all over the rest of Downtown.

I kinda liked that aspect of the old WTC...

Lecom · #32 Posted: **Aug 20, 2009, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGII

I kinda liked that aspect of the old WTC...

It definitely had a very iconic appeal, but they were attention whore buildings - it would've been incredibly hard to alter the skyline in such a way that it would actually draw some attention away from them. One of the reasons for that were the 14 acres of plaza and lowrises around the towers.

CGII · #33 Posted: **Aug 20, 2009, 5:54 PM**

I dunno, given this country's history with incredibly out of place buildings I don't think it's a legitimate argument to discount a building simply because it would apparently destroy a skyline. It's hard to think of a single US city that doesn't have an incredibly beloved, yet once out of place, tall building; JHC and Sears in Chicago, ESB here in NY, JHB in Boston, Transamerica in SF, Williamsburg Bank in Brooklyn, etc etc etc.

I mean, I dunno, Foster's towers might've been horrible at street level, I've never really seen detailed plans, models or renderings of the rest of the site but I wouldn't lay on it for dominating everything.

Lecom · #34 Posted: **Aug 20, 2009, 6:16 PM**

^There's nothing wrong with tall buildings, even "out of place" ones. It's their landscape/streetscape treatment that ultimately makes or breaks them on skyline level oppression, ironicaly. Take Sears Tower, for instance. Taller than the old WTC, it still fit in much better because it was placed on regular city grid. The Twin Towers, however, were surrounded by a 4x4 acre circle of exclusion that made sure that nothing could usurp their status. That's why I like the new design better, in that sense - back to the street grid/reation to the skyline. Though the FT is the same height/girth as the old towers were, it feels much less dominant when compared to the rest of Downtown.

Kamatzu · #35 Posted: **Sep 19, 2009, 9:07 PM**

Such a weird building. Would have been interesting to see that in NYC.

YSL · #36 Posted: **Sep 21, 2009, 3:49 PM**

I think I prefer this. It has more presence than the "FreedomTower" and it doesn't need an antenna to be tall. Two massive towers are better than ONE tower since tower 2 and 3 are MIA.

It looks like a monster!

AtlantaMustang · #37 Posted: **Dec 22, 2009, 5:34 AM**

This was actually my favorite proposal. These buildings, imo, would be amazing.

hunser · #38 Posted: **Mar 7, 2012, 7:44 PM**

This proposal is even better than what we are getting now. Also, the roof height would be 538m x2 !! That's an insane height, I mean it got proposed roughly 9 years go. Shame it didn't make it. I guess we have to wait till the Foster WTC appears in an alternate universe on Fringe.

Roadcruiser1 · #39 Posted: **Mar 7, 2012, 10:44 PM**

Lord Norman Foster did get to become the architect to this building for the World Trade Center.

THE BIG APPLE · #40 Posted: **Mar 9, 2012, 3:35 AM**

This would've definitely looked BETTER than the current WTC when looking from the BK Bridge.